Today I sent my annual
message to the Congress, as required by the Constitution. It has been my
custom to deliver these annual messages in person, and they have been
broadcast to the nation. I intended to follow this same custom this
year. But like a great many other people, I've had the flu and,
although I am practically recovered, my doctor simply would not let me
to leave the White House to go up to the Capitol.

Only a few of the
newspapers of the United States can print the message in full, and I am
anxious that the American people be given an opportunity to hear what I
have recommended to the Congress for this very fateful year in our
history -- and the reasons for these recommendations. Here is what I
said:

This nation in the past two years has become an active partner in the
world's greatest war against human slavery. We have joined with
like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been
gravely threatened with gangster rule.

But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere
survival. Sacrifices that we and our Allies are making impose upon all
of us a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our
children will gain something better than mere survival. We are united in
determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim
which leads to new disaster -- that we shall not repeat the tragic
errors of ostrich isolationism.

When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October,
when I went to Cairo and Teheran in November, we knew that we were in
agreement with our Allies in our common determination to fight and win
this war. There were many vital questions concerning the future peace,
and they were discussed in an atmosphere of complete candor and harmony.

In the last war such
discussions, such meetings, did not even begin until the shooting had
stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peace table. There
had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussions which lead
to meetings of minds. And the result was a peace which was not a peace.

And right here I want to address a word or two to some suspicious souls
who are fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made "commitments" for the
future which might pledge this nation to secret treaties, or to enacting
the role of a world Santa Claus. Of course we made commitments. For
instance, we most certainly committed ourselves to very large and very
specific military plans which require the use of all allied forces to
bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliest possible time. But
there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments.

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each
nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in
one word: security.
And that means not only physical security, which provides safety from
attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security,
moral security -- in a family of nations.

In the plain, down-to-earth talks that I had with the
Generalissimo and
Marshal Stalin and
Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear
that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful
progress by their own peoples -- progress toward a better life.
All our Allies have learned by bitter experience that real
development will not be possible if they are to be diverted from their
purpose by repeated wars -- or even threats of war.

The best interests of each nation, large and small, demand that all
freedom-loving nations shall join together in a just and durable system
of peace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of
Germany, and Italy and Japan, unquestioned military control over
disturbers of the peace is as necessary among nations as it is among
citizens in any community. And an equally basic essential to peace
-- permanent peace -- is a decent standard of living for all individual
men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is
eternally linked with freedom from want.

There are of course people who burrow -- burrow through the nation like unseeing
moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other nations are
encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard
of living must of necessity be depressed.

The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if
the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing
power -- and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in
neighboring countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common
sense; and is the kind of plain, common sense that provided the basis
for our discussions at Moscow, and Cairo and Teheran.

Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of being "let
down" when I found many evidences of faulty perspectives here in
Washington. The faulty perspective consists in over-emphasizing lesser
problems and thereby under-emphasizing the first and greatest problem.

The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war
with magnificent courage and a great deal of understanding. They have
accepted inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have
accepted tragic sacrifices.

However, while the majority goes on about its great work without
complaint, we all know that a noisy minority maintains an uproar, an
uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests
who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of
Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic
interests of the nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war
primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of
their neighbors -- profits in money or profits in terms of political or
social preferment.
Such selfish agitation can be and is highly dangerous in wartime. It
creates confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It
prolongs the war.

In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon
each other are all groups and sections of the whole population of
America.
Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wage
increases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of
all things including those things which the farmers themselves have to
buy. Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same
results. They are all -- They all have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed
income groups.

And I hope you will remember that all of us in this
Government,
including myself, represent the fixed income group just as much as we
represent business owners, or workers, or farmers. This group of
fixed income people include: teachers, and clergy, and policemen, and
firemen, and widows, and minors who are on fixed incomes, wives and
dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old age pensioners. They and
their families add up to more than a quarter of our hundred and
thirty million people. They have few or no high pressure representatives
at the Capitol. And in a period of gross inflation they would be the
worst sufferers. Let us give them an occasional thought.

If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness
for the national good, that time is now. Disunity at home,
bickering, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation,
business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual -- and sometimes a
failure to tell the whole truth -- these are the influences which can
undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us
here.

Those who are doing most of the complaining, I do not think that they
are deliberately striving to sabotage the national war effort. They are
laboring under the delusion that the time is past when we must make
prodigious sacrifices -- that the war is already won and we can begin to
slacken off. But the dangerous folly of that point of view can be
measured by the distance that separates our troops from their ultimate
objectives in Berlin and Tokyo -- and by the sum of all the perils that
lie along the way.

Over confidence and complacency are among our deadliest of all enemies.

That attitude on the part of anyone -- Government or management or
labor -- can lengthen this war. It can kill American boys.

Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tide
turned in favor of the Allies. But this Government did not relax, nor
did the American people. In fact, our national effort was stepped up. In
August 1918, the draft age limits were broadened from 21 to 31 all the
way to 18 to 45. The President called for "force to the utmost," and his
call was heeded. And in November, only three months later, Germany
surrendered.
That is the way to fight and win a war -- all out and not with
half-an-eye on the battlefronts abroad and the other eye-and-a-half on
personal selfish, or political interests here at home.

Therefore, in order to concentrate all of our energies, all of our
resources on winning this war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy
at home, I recommend that the Congress adopt:

First, a realistic and simplified tax law -- which will tax all
unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the
ultimate cost of the war to our sons and our daughters. The tax bill now
under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.

Secondly, a continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war
contracts -- which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices
to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress
to take undue profits out of war.

Third, a cost of food law -- which will enable the Government to place a
reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his
production; and to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have
to pay for the necessary food he buys. This should apply, as I have
intimated, to necessities only; and this will require public funds to
carry it out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the
present annual cost of the war.

Fourth, an early re-enactment of the stabilization statute of October,
1942. This expires this year, June 30th, 1944, and if it is not extended
well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by
summertime.
We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive
action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.

And fifth, a national service law -- which, for the duration of the war,
will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will
make available for war production or for any other essential services
every able-bodied adult in this whole nation.

These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would
not recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed
to keep down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of
taxation, to hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits.

The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and
property of all kinds for war purposes on the basis of
"Just
Compensation."

And, as you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a
national service act. Today, however, with all the experience we have
behind us and with us, I am convinced of its necessity. Although I
believe that we and our Allies can win the war without such a measure, I
am certain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our
resources of manpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and
reduce the toll of suffering and sorrow and blood.

As some of my advisers wrote me the other day:

"When the very life of the nation is in peril the responsibility for
service is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be no
discrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the
Government to its defense at the battlefront and the men and women
assigned to producing the vital materials that are essential to
successful military operations. A prompt enactment of a National Service
Law would be merely an expression of the universality of this American
responsibility."

I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemn
truth.

National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like
selective service for the Armed Forces, it rests on the obligation of
each citizen to serve his nation to -- to his utmost where he is best
qualified.
It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirement
and seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantial
numbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let this
fact be wholly clear.

But there are millions of American men and women who are not in this war at
all. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to
know where they can best do their share. National service provides that
direction.

I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say many
years hence to their grandchildren: "Yes, I, too, was in service in the
great war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped to make
hundreds of fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I
was performing my most useful work in the service of my country."

It is argued that we've passed the stage in the war where national
service is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is not
true. We're going forward on a long, rough road -- and, in all
journeys, the last miles are the hardest. And it is for that final
effort -- for the total defeat of our enemies -- that we must mobilize
our total resources. The national war program calls for the employment
of more people in 1944 than in 1943.

And it is my conviction that the American people will welcome this
win-the-war measure which is based on the eternally just principle of
fair for one, fair for all.
It will give our people at home the assurance that they are standing
four-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our
enemies demoralizing assurance that we mean business -- that we, one
hundred and thirty million Americans, are on the march to Rome, and
Berlin, and Tokyo.

I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a
political year, national service is an issue which transcends politics.
Great power must be used for great purposes. And as to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should
determine its nature -- as long as it is wholly non-partisan in its
make-up.

Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation
which would preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the
fundamental prerogative of citizenship -- in other words, the right to
vote. No amount of legalistic argument can becloud this issue in the
eyes of these ten million American citizens. Surely the signers of the
Constitution did not intend a document which, even in wartime, would be
construed to take away the franchise of any of those who are fighting to
preserve the Constitution itself.

Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority
of them will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting
machinery is left exclusively to the States under existing State laws --
and that there is no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to
enable them to vote at the next election. The Army and Navy have
reported that it will be impossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier-voting laws. It is the duty of the Congress to
remove this unjustifiable discrimination against the men and women in
our Armed Forces -- and to do it just as quickly as possible.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy.
More -- More than the winning of the war, it is time to begin the plans and
determine the strategy for winning a lasting peace and the establishment
of an American standard of living higher than ever known before.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under
the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the
right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life
and liberty.
We have come to a clearer realization of the fact, however, that true
individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and
independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry,
people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are
made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.
We have accepted, so to speak, a
Second Bill of Rights under which a new
basis of security and prosperity can be established for all --
regardless of station, or race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops
or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
recreation;

The right of farmers to raise and sell their products at a return which
will give them and their families a decent living;

The right of every business man, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, and
sickness, and accident and unemployment;

And finally, the right to a good education.

All of these rights spell
"security." And after this war is won we must be
prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new
goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how
fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all
our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be
lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day -- a man who has
rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis -- recently
emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this nation. Any
clear-thinking business men share that concern. Indeed, if such reaction
should develop -- if history were to repeat itself and we were to return
to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's -- then it is certain that
even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields
abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic
bill of rights -- for it is definitely the responsibility of the
Congress so to do, and the country knows it. Many of these problems are
already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed
legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress
with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no
adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the nation
will be conscious of the fact.

Our fighting men abroad -- and their families at home -- expect such a
program and have the right to insist on it. It is to their demands that
this Government should pay heed, rather than to the whining demands of
selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young
Americans are dying.

I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war.
There is only one front. There is one line of unity that extends from
the hearts of people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our
farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the
factory and the field and the mine as well as the battlefield. We
speak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government.

Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve
this nation in its most critical hour, to keep this nation great, to
make this nation greater in a better world.